more than 1 vox channel allowed

[Kanth]

Especially for Oculus users to more easily communicate with their squad and then any tactical command channnel for their side. for position reports, enemy sightings and updates.

it's  a bugger trying to type all of that out when you are engaged or trying to herd your cats.

[cav58d]

+1

I think this would get instant use and make a positive impact in scenarios and special events.

[FLS]

Range plus 3 tune-able channels would allow vox for command(ATC), squad, and wingman on a 4 way hat switch.   

[puller]

Range plus 3 tune-able channels would allow vox for command(ATC), squad, and wingman on a 4 way hat switch.   

+1

[popeye]

Range plus 3 tune-able channels would allow vox for command(ATC), squad, and wingman on a 4 way hat switch.   

So, you would be receiving 4 channels of VOX talking over each other.  Sounds a lot like herding cats.   

[TWCAxew]

This frustrates me sometimes as wel. Not enough voice channels.

[TequilaChaser]

Range plus 3 tune-able channels would allow vox for command(ATC), squad, and wingman on a 4 way hat switch.   

It would be a good option to have......but

So, you would be receiving 4 channels of VOX talking over each other.  Sounds a lot like herding cats.   

If HTC does implement multiple  VOX channels, it would be even better if it was implemented in a way that you could select which VOX channel over rides another one....

TC

[FLS]

So, you would be receiving 4 channels of VOX talking over each other.  Sounds a lot like herding cats.   

Don't tune to 4 idiots.   

It would be a good option to have......but

If HTC does implement multiple  VOX channels, it would be even better if it was implemented in a way that you could select which VOX channel over rides another one....

TC

We already have the Voice checkbox option to play VOX in sequence.   

[Kanth]

yes, thank you, i worded that wish badly. 

Range plus 3 tune-able channels would allow vox for command(ATC), squad, and wingman on a 4 way hat switch.   

[FLS]

You covered it. I just chimed in.   

[BowHTR]

Why not use a 3rd party voice comms?

[Wiley]

Because it's a lot simpler to work ingame, don't need to configure multiple different audio input/output settings, don't need to walk new people through configuring software, logging into a server, joining the proper channel, setting up keybinds, and so forth.

It would be set channel 1, push to talk.  Set channel 2.  Push other button to talk.

Also while we're at it, the ability to mute range would be really, really swell.

Wiley.

[Zoney]

Because it's a lot simpler to work ingame, don't need to configure multiple different audio input/output settings, don't need to walk new people through configuring software, logging into a server, joining the proper channel, setting up keybinds, and so forth.

It would be set channel 1, push to talk.  Set channel 2.  Push other button to talk.

Also while we're at it, the ability to mute range would be really, really swell.

Wiley.

And more specifically .mute drunk gvers

Might be kinda hard to code.

[Kanth]

the coordination overhead is lower if you just do it in game.  i could connect to some adhoc command structure without having to pass out server information and have them seperately log into a ts or vent.   

anything as simple as multiple pickup missions coordinating in melee to a mini scenario kind of environment (fso or something like that cordination between squad leaders and cic)

if it were just a squad and the same people every time then ya third party...would probably be the way.

Why not use a 3rd party voice comms?

[Petey]

A second TAC would be great for wing man coms too!

and maybe an option to detune range if needed due to chatter?

+1